Skip to comments.Janus v. AFSCME: Perhaps This Time The Court Will Take The First Amendment Seriously
Posted on 03/02/2018 5:59:22 AM PST by reaganaut1
On February 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME. The issue in the case is whether public unions can compel workers who have declined to become members to pay them an agency fee that supposedly covers the unions activities other than political action.
Mark Janus is a public employee in Illinois and under state law, he must pay his union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees a fee that is 78 percent of the full membership dues. That is the amount that the union says is the fair share of workers who decline to become members -- $45 per month for Mr. Janus.
Even if you believe that public unions like AFSCME spend only 22 percent of their revenues on politics, Janus contends that because the activities of public unions are inherently political, being forced to support any portion of their spending impinges on his First Amendment rights. Just as the government cannot interfere with Americans when they wish to communicate, neither can it compel them to provide money to enable others to communicate.
Moreover, and by their own admission, union officials are not just interested in negotiating on behalf of the employees they represent, but also for a host of social justice concerns. Lawrence Sand points out in this California Policy Center article that public unions have boasted about their dedication to bargaining for the common good. For example, the president of the Unified Teachers of Los Angeles declares that he thinks the union should bargain for green spaces at schools and provide a legal defense fund for students and family members who might face deportation.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Everyone looking at Gorsuch but I don’t trust Kennedy or Roberts. Roberts F’d us but good with ACA and AZ trying to
stop the invasion.
“Everyone looking at Gorsuch but I dont trust Kennedy or Roberts. Roberts Fd us but good with ACA and AZ trying to
stop the invasion.”
This was deadlocked at 4 to 4 because Scalia died. Makes you wonder if Scalia was killed in order to get a liberal justice on SCOTUS after Hillary was elected.
Public employees needing a union is ridiculous on its face. They need to be disbanded. Govt workers don’t need a union.
Agree 101%;there is no way public employees paid with tax money should have a union. It puts a union in direct competition against the taxpayer in my opinion.
Yes public employees are in no danger of being exploited.
I wish Buzzy Ginsburg would honor her pledge to move to Australia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.